PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
22 FEBRUARY 2007
7:00 P.M.


I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present:    Steve Galster, Bob Diehl, Tony Butrum, David Okum, Lawrence Hawkins III, Tom Vanover
    And Chairman Okum

Others Present:    Jeff Tulloch, Economic Development Director
    Bill McErlane, Building Official
    Pat Madl, CDS Engineering
    Jonathan Wocher, McBride, Dale Clarion Planners

III. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 9 JANUARY 2007

Mr. Vanover moved to approve the Minutes and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye except Mr. Diehl and Mr. Butrum, who abstained. Minutes were approved with five affirmative votes.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A. Report on Council

Mr. Galster reported that an ordinance banning wood burning boilers in the city was passed at the Council meeting last night.

B. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes 19 December 2006
C. 1/10/07 Letter to President of Council re Zoning Code Amendment for Electronic Signs in Planned Unit Development Zoning Districts
D. Zoning Bulletin – January 15, 2007
E. Planning Commissioners Journal – Winter 2007

V. OLD BUSINESS


VI. NEW BUSINESS

A. Approval of Ground Sign Setback at Southwest Corner – Springdale Town Center, Springfield Pike

Jeff Baumgarth of Myers Y. Cooper said the approved location of the sign would be blocked by a traffic control box and a traffic light pedestal. We are requesting approval to move the sign to the north and the west to improve visibility. The sign would be moved approximately four feet to the north and eight feet to the west of the approved location.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned Planned Unit Development. Planning approved the final development plan on October 11, 2005 and the applicant is requesting to be allowed a two-foot front yard setback due to a problem with visibility.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
22 FEBRUARY 2007
PAGE TWO

GROUND SIGN SETBACK – SPRINGDALE TOWN CENTER

Mr. Wocher reported that our main concern is that Planning make sure that the ground sign will be located within a landscape island.

Mr. Madl said that the on issue is that the sign is within an existing landscape easement. We are recommending vacating a portion of that easement so the sign will not be within the easement. There is a portion of the pavers along Peach Street which are not covered by an existing easement, and we would recommend that an additional landscape and scenic easement be provided for along Peach Street.

Mr. Okum asked if this would be at the expense of the applicant. Mr. Baumgarth reported that there was a landscape island planned, so it will be moved to the new location.

Mr. Galster wondered if Council needed to approve the giving away of an easement and getting some back. Mr. Madl reported that as long as the applicant is accepting this, it need not go beyond this board.

Mr. Galster moved to grant the request for the sign to be moved and make the proper corrections to the easements so that the sign is not in the easement and the pavers are covered in the easement.

Mr. Butrum seconded the motion.

All present voted aye, and approval was granted unanimously.

B. Approval of Exterior Fašade Revisions, Angelic Whispers – 11465 Springfield Pike

Roberto Soria owner of the property reported the staff would like for us to eliminate four of the five parking spaces in the front. That is something we are concerned about because we have no side on that lot the back lot is irregular, and there is no pedestrian areas to walk back to the front. On the south side is Wendy’s and on the north side is the wood shop. We have approached our neighbors to the north asking to buy or lease parking spots and they declined.

Taking away the parking spaces would severely restrict our business. We are more than willing to do some landscaping, but in fairness and to be able to function better, we would need at least three parking spaces in the front. Also, south on Springfield Pike, there are many businesses that have front parking spaces as well.

Concerning the percentage of stone on the building, most of the front is safety glass. The part we are going to cover is 41%. If we put 60% it would not look fluid. It would b both sides up to the level of the windows and above. The rest would be stucco, slightly mauve, the same color as the three walls not covered by stone.







PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
22 FEBRUARY 2007
PAGE THREE

VI B EXTERIOR REVISIONS ANGELIC WHISPERS 11465 SPRINGFIELD PK.

Mr. Soria added you should have in your packet at least one drawing that shows the building facades. The north and south fašade will be exactly alike.

There will be two types of signage. One will be centered on the top part where there used to be an awning. It will be centered on the top of the building with architectural lettering and illuminated by gooseberry lamps. The existing 35 square foot sign on the southern corner will be refaced with some natural material.

The question was how waste would be handled and we will be retail and will have paper and plastic trash. We will be talking to Rumpke as to their recommendation, and it will be according to what they feel is best for a business of this size. The most important for us is the parking, because we are so limited.

Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant is proposing to change colors and materials on the front of the existing building. The existing front fašade is painted smooth face block. They propose to apply a stone veneer to the lower portion of the storefront and a painted stucco finish to the upper portion. It appears that the sides of the building will be painted with the “mauve” color used on the stucco.

A wall sign with 24” high “architectural letters” is indicated on the front of the building. The sign scales approximately 41’ long which would make the sign82 s.f. but it is not clear whether the lower extension of the gap of the lower case letters of the 3-D drawing are included in the two-foot height of the sign. There is an existing 4’ x 8’ ground sign which would make the total proposed sign area 114 s.f. and 121 s.f. is allowed.

Mr. Wocher reported that parking requirements meet the retail space, and there will be readings and classes as well. We project 23 are required and there are 25 spaces shown. There is a concern about the five that access from Springfield Pike and the safety. We would suggest that they eliminate four spaces and utilize the rest of the area for the one required van accessible handicapped space and landscaping.

The calculations of stone on the building needs to be provided concerning the incorporation on the front fašade relative to the percentage of the elevation. The Corridor Review District requires that 60% of three elevations contain brick or stone. We would ask that elevations be provided for the other sides to calculate the percentage of the building materials. We also need clarification on how the waste will be handled.

Should Planning approve this modification, for safety reasons they should consider illuminating four of the five parking spaces that access directly from Springfield Pike.




PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
22 FEBRUARY 2007
PAGE FOUR

VI B EXTERIOR REVISIONS ANGELIC WHISPERS 11465 SPRINGFIELD PK.

Mr. Madl said we concur that four of the five parking spaces with direct access to Springfield Pike should be eliminated. No detention is required for this property.

Mr. Okum asked if there was a doorway into the rear of the property. Mr. Soria answered there are two doors. One is small going into the rear hallway and the other is an escape doorway in case of fire. They are only in case of emergency.

Mr. Okum said so your clients would have to walk around the building and into the front of the building. Mr. Soria responded it is actually a road where traffic goes in and out. Mr. Okum wondered if there were any safety things that could be done and Mr. Soria reported that none of that property belongs to them.

Mr. Okum said staff recommends that four of the parking spaces in the front should be eliminated; can you make that work?

Mr. Soria responded not four. That would be impractical, just for access and the back parking lot is rolling and would be dangerous in bad weather.

Mr. Okum asked the applicant if he had considered reconfiguring the building so there would be an entry from the rear by the parking field. Mr. Soria responded it would allow us to function a lot better, but it would be beyond our current budget.

Mr. Okum said if the front parking area is not safe and unfortunately the majority of the parking is in the rear, a reconfiguration of the entry should be considered.

Mr. Butrum wondered how many customers would be there at one time. Mr. Soria answered it would depend, from12 to 14 at a time.

Mr. Butrum commented you are proposing three parking spots in the front, and there would be 12-14 people so there would be 10 cars that would be parked in the back.

Mr. Butrum added the problem is clear, no matter what. If you only want one handicapped spot, it would make sense to figure out a way to address that problem. Mr. Soria responded we are still trying to have our neighbor lease or share the parking spaces.

Mr. Hawkins said the issue is ingress or egress and the irregularity of the pavement in the back. How much would that cost to fix? Mr. Soria answered I don’t know, but probably I think it would be astronomical.

Mr. Okum said people pulling into and then backing out onto Springfield Pike is a bad situation, an accident waiting to happen. The way your property is laid out is unfortunate. You do not have a walk along the side of the building.




PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
22 FEBRUARY 2007
PAGE FIVE

VI B EXTERIOR REVISIONS ANGELIC WHISPERS 11465 SPRINGFIELD PK.

Mr. Okum added I am concerned about the safety of people parking in the back, and in all good conscience, I cannot allow that type situation to occur. Based on the way things are presented, there are not a lot of positive things in your plan. On the brick and stone, there is very little brick on the side of the building.

Mr. Galster added 60% needs to be on three sides of the building. There are not a lot of positive things I see in this.

Mr. Soria stated I thought only one side of the building had to have 60% brick or stone. Mr. Galster added what you are doing looks better than what is there now.

Mr. Okum commented it gets dark at 5 p.m. in the winter. I am very concerned about the cars parked in the back and those people going down a dark driveway Mr. Soria stated we are talking with Duke Engineering to put some lights up for us. Mr. Okum said I don’t believe that would fall within the Corridor Review District and a lighting plan would have to be approved. Unless you come up with a resolution for the ingress/egress to your property, I cannot support what you wish to do. If it were all asphalt, you could put a 5’ wide sidewalk to the entry door with landscaping, but a door in the back would be easier.

Mr. Syfert said I have to echo the comments concerning the ingress and egress. The reading I am getting from the board is that you will not get approval of this option. I would suggest that you ask us to table this, look at it closer and come back. If you want us to vote, we can do so, but I am sure it would not pass. The main hang up is the cars backing out onto Route 4.

Mr. Soria said we will ask that this be tabled.

Mr. Galster commented the way the property is laid out, you will have a difficult time. The only way I see it working is to have an entrance in the rear and, if you have that, why have the handicapped spot in the front?

Mr. Soria responded everything is framed, the walls are up, and what you are asking is impossible for us.

Mr. Galster said if there was a half moon turn around in place of the five parking spots that might be possible. In general if the main access needs to be to the rear, to does not seem sensible to have the handicapped park in the front.

Mr. Okum moved to table and Mr. Butrum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and it was tabled to the March13th meeting.







PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
22 FEBRUARY 2007
PAGE SIX

C. Development Plan Approval Lakeview Project, Maple Knoll Village (redevelopment of existing cottages)

Doug Hinger, President of Great Traditions passed out a site plan for the Kensington Place (formerly called Lakeview Project). We are here to present the final development plan.

We will be removing all the units in this section and replacing them with five new buildings of two to three stories. This community has a village concept, with emphasis on pedestrians and residential architecture.

Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant is proposing to construct 56 dwelling units, three one-bedroom units, 43 two-bedroom units and 10 three-bedroom units. A total of 121 parking spaces are to be provided, consisting of 84 garage spaces and 37 surface spaces.

A total of 591” of trees are shown to be removed. Trees which are within the footprint of proposed buildings are exempt from replanting, and there are 223 caliper inches exempt from replanting.

Mr. Wocher reported that the significant majority of the exterior of the buildings are to be constructed of brick veneer with the balance of rusticated masonry veneer.

Should Planning Commission choose to approve the Development plan for Kensington Place, the following should be considered:


1. The Landscape Plan should be revised to be consistent with staff comments and resubmitted for staff review and approval.
2. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view.
3. The mounting height and pole/fixture color need to be provided to staff for their review and approval.

Mr. Syfert asked the height of the poles and Mr. Hinger reported that they are 12 feet high throughout the project.

Mr. Madl reported that a net increase in impervious area of 0.11 acres has been noted on the plans. The major storm routing will need to have analysis submitted verifying that there is sufficient capacity and that it is up to the current code. Mr. Hinger said we are looking at that right now. Mr. Madl responded we would be lad to help out.

Mr. Madl added that the storm water quality best management practices need to be utilized. This may include catch basin internal sumps, catch basin inserts, bio-swales, etc. This would be a good location and we would recommend a rain garden in the vicinity of the proposed catch basins along State Route 4.

Mr. Galster questioned the construction of Building C, specifically the lower level. Mr. Hinger responded that they are still finalizing that. Mr. Galster also questioned Building D on Sheet A 231.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
22 FEBRUARY 2007
PAGE SEVEN

DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL OF KENSINGTON PLACE

Mr. Hinger reported that they should look at those in the context of the entire design. The landscaping will reduce the impact of that, but we could add windows. Mr. Galster responded the one facing out to Maple Trace should have more pizzazz. Mr. Hinger commented that is something we can look at.

Mr. McErlane reported that he met with the architect and he mentioned that this project was being constructed in phases. Mr. Hinger said it will be; we expect the construction to take two to three years.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the final development plan for Kensington Place including the following:

1. All staff, city engineer, city planner recommendations.
2. Light fixture and pole color shall be per sample submitted at 12 feet high.
3. All four building elevations as submitted.
4. Color pallet as submitted.

Mr. Butrum seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the approval was granted unanimously.

VII. DISCUSSION

VIII. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

A. Subway – Springdale Town Center – Wall Sign
B. Whiskey Willys – 12185 Springfield Pike – Ground and Roof Signs
C. Cartridge World – 1347 East Kemper Rd. (Kemper Pond) – Wall Sign

IX. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Butrum moved to adjourn and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 8:12 p.m.

                    Respectfully submitted,



______________________,2007    __________________________
                    William Syfert, Chairman



_____________________,2007    __________________________
                    Lawrence Hawkins III Secretary